I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

I haven't read the thread, but this is a faulty premise and once that is brought to light your argument falls apart.

Atoms are not aware of themselves (as far as we know). We are aware of ourselves. And the reason for this is a chemical and physical miracle: the proper molecules, under the right conditions, were able to become self-replicating. Voila! Life. Now you can fast forward 3.5 x10^9 years* and you have humans, an incredible complex product of mechanical processes. Charged chemicals, or ions (potassium, sodium, and calcium being among the most common), create an electrical polarity within a neuron which begins a chain reaction and the end result encompasses the entirety of our perception Our awareness of our surroundings and ourselves.

Life is SO MUCH cooler when you actually think about it.

*http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GeoEras.html

 

so the chances are superastronomical huh? well when you consider the possibilities of an infinite universe, anything that is considered superastronomical is bound to happen sooner or later, i mean you do have infinite chances.

in other words superastronomical = possible.

you just proved that life is possible without god. thank you.

 

i'm not mistaking anything. consciousness is the result of neural activity, and that it what gives you with the ability to spend your entire life pondering its "nature," if you choose to do so. i dont need to rely on "mysteries"

 

also, i would like to clear up a little about the miler-urey experiments:

the experiment was created to to test for chemical evolution, you see,what miler and urey wanted to test what was hypothesized by soviet scientists before them. their hypothesis was simple "the atmosphere of primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic compounds."

so thats exactly what the miler-urey experiments tested. and they were successful in evolving non organic compounds into organic compounds.

as a matter of fact, they were able to identify 5 different amino acids, that was in the 1950's.

their experiment was repeated famously several times by different universities and by 1980's they were able to identify well over 20 amino acids.

Okiefreak has nuts in his mouth (mine).

 

The idea isnt something such as an overseer. but more of a connection. your atoms are now exchanging electrons with the atoms around you. ALL's existance is exchanging energy.

This may seem to be off target im sure. But god is not so much the personification of an entity. It is more the encompensation of all in a form that does not create seperation. It does not discriminate because it is the full compilation of the parts that not only cause ALL but also relies on on ALL.

ALL can not be without ALL, but All will not do so.

Its a matter of accepting that even though humans can not at this point understand every facit of existance, does not mean there is not a pattern to it.

That pattern is not knowingly existant.

It is naturally eistant.

And what should be, can not understand anything but what should be.

 

God is neither bad nor good. it should be considered the compilation of all movements or perhaps the cause of all movements. you really cant hate or love it. you can only except it. because god is what has happened and all that will happen. its a different definition from what most look at it. it is not a crutch nor is it an assentive. you work within its confine. it does not react to you.

 

That argument may explain too much. If you take that point of view, it would be possible to attribute virtually anything to chance. There goes science!

 

No one relies on mysteries. You either respect the unknown or you don't.

Given an infinity of possibilities, why would 13 billion-year-old hydrogen make all this effort to become the neural network you rely on for your question of consciousness?

Given 13 billion years, hydrogen actually became . . . you. If that doesn't make you pause and wonder, then maybe the real question should be - what would?

Isn't it just ignoring the question to take neural activity for granted? This rock solid thing you rely on for your answer, do you really have no sense of wonder at just how infinitely unlikely its randomly arrived-at existence actually is?

 

Think of all the other even less likely possibilities that never came to pass.

 

But the real question is what do you want to bet your life on. We all could have been assembled randomly ten seconds ago with memory tracks that lead us to think we've been around a lot longer, because in other galaxies far, far away a lot of more likely or less likely possibilities have happened. So wadda ya think? Leave it at that and say everything could have happened that way, the so called "laws' of science are an illusion? Yadayadayada. It's logically possible, but practically nonsense.

 

There's a big difference between saying the universe spontaneously came into being in its current state, and explaining how life arose from inorganic matter in a pre-existing reference frame.

 

How can you "respect" what is unknown?
i dont wonder why i started as hydrogen billions of years ago because i know that through natural processes, hydrogen became helium became the other elements, compounds, etc.
The way that my body formed was not random at all. it was based on the way things react with each other chemically. i dont see how the formation of things could be considered "unlikely" if thats just the way they work. under a different set of conditions, things would react differently and i may not have existed at all.
i think nature is a beautiful thing and yes im in awe of its complexity, but not because i think there are spiritual or mysterious things at work.

 

Believe me Sylph ish----the way your body formed was no accident! (...ooops, did i say that out loud? Sorry....)

(PS: You know----this would work a lot better if you'd post some pictures on your album, so we can all see how pretty you are...)

 

we know that 1 + 1 = 2. can it ever truly equal anything but that? cause and effect is definite, even if we can not understand all the variables that exist in a particular equation.

It seems that the idea of the word "spiritual" or "mystical" is actually detrimental to the idea of god.

Remember that words and ideas such as spiritual and mystical and even god are only the result of a human construct that we call communication. But someone must also acknowledge the fact that ideas and feelings can be miscommunicated at much baser levels than that of philosphy, and therefore none of these words(god, spiritual, mystical) may acurately convey the true meaning of each said idea.

Some would say that because we began with the "magician in the sky" idea of god (which is not true at all), than god is a flawed idea. But even in this aspect, the concept of god is much like science. We have an idea and we test it. Some parts of it prove to be valid while others do not. We never discard the entire experiment because our hypothesis did not prove to be true. We only alter the experiment to further understand the phenomenon in question.

God is not comparable to anything we know, including ourselves. And arguing over it only creates obstacles to the advancement which is already intended for us by cause and effect.

BTW, do not put anything i say in concrete. I acknowledge the flaws in language. : )

 

Since the beginning of the 20th century, quantum mechanics has revealed previously concealed aspects of events. Newtonian physics, taken in isolation rather than as an approximation to quantum mechanics, depicts a universe in which objects move in perfectly determinative ways. At human scale levels of interaction, Newtonian mechanics makes predictions that are agreed with, within the accuracy of measurement. Poorly designed and fabricated guns and ammunition scatter their shots rather widely around the center of a target, and better guns produce tighter patterns. Absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet should produce absolutely reliable predictions of its path, or so was thought. However, knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior.
At atomic scales the paths of objects can only be predicted in a probabilistic way. The paths may not be exactly specified in a full quantum description of the particles; "path" is a classical concept which quantum particles do not exactly possess. The probability arises from the measurement of the perceived path of the particle. In some cases, a quantum particle may trace an exact path, and the probability of finding the particles in that path is one. The quantum development is at least as predictable as the classical motion, but it describes wave functions that cannot be easily expressed in ordinary language. In double-slit experiments, photons are fired singly through a double-slit apparatus at a distant screen and does not arrive at a single point, nor do the photons arrive in a scattered pattern analogous to bullets fired by a fixed gun at a distant target. Instead, the light arrives in varying concentrations at widely separated points, and the distribution of its collisions can be calculated reliably. In that sense the behavior of light in this apparatus is deterministic, but there is no way to predict where in the resulting interference pattern an individual photon will make its contribution (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
Some have argued that, in addition to the conditions humans can observe and the laws we can deduce, there are hidden factors or "hidden variables" that determine absolutely in which order photons reach the detector screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically-determinative way. In actuality, they proceed in an absolutely deterministic way. Although matters are still subject to some measure of dispute, quantum mechanics makes statistical predictions which would be violated if some local hidden variables existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify those predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated, though many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the question. (See Bell test experiments.) It is possible, however, to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.
On the macro scale it can matter very much whether a bullet arrives at a certain point at a certain time, as snipers are well aware; there are analogous quantum events that have macro- as well as quantum-level consequences. It is easy to contrive situations in which the arrival of an electron at a screen at a certain point and time would trigger one event and its arrival at another point would trigger an entirely different event. (See Schrödinger's cat.)
Even before the laws of quantum mechanics were fully developed, the phenomenon of radioactivity posed a challenge to determinism. A gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. By all tests known to science these atoms are identical and indistinguishable. Yet about 12600 times a second one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. This decay does not depend on external stimulus and no extant theory of physics predicts when any given atom will decay, with realistically obtainable knowledge. The uranium found on earth is thought to have been synthesized during a supernova explosion that occurred roughly 5 billion years ago. For determinism to hold, every uranium atom must contain some internal "clock" that specifies the exact time it will decay.[citation needed] And somehow the laws of physics must specify exactly how those clocks were set as each uranium atom was formed during the supernova collapse.
Exposure to alpha radiation can cause cancer. For this to happen, at some point a specific alpha particle must alter some chemical reaction in a cell in a way that results in a mutation. Since molecules are in constant thermal motion, the exact timing of the radioactive decay that produced the fatal alpha particle matters. If probabilistically determined events do have an impact on the macro events -- such as when a person who could have been historically important dies in youth of a cancer caused by a random mutation -- then the course of history is not determined from the dawn of time.
The time dependent Schrödinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time.


"A purely deterministic universe.
One without probability of paths through choice.
One where all paths are determined by a starting condition.
Is a psychosis."

 

All this shit about hydrogen or elements, god never said how he made the universe
maybe he did make hydrogen to make this and that, the thing and the point is this
something made us there's no such thing as something from nothing, so what made
god well that my children is beyond my and your understanding.


WITH TURE LOVE

MIKE

xxx

 

try this

 

And the beat goes on da-da-dum da-dum da-dah


Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[29] (Note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists"). Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory[30] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
For instance, classical physics is simpler than subsequent theories, but should not be preferred over them because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects. It is the first requirement of a theory that it works, that its predictions are correct and it has not been falsified. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed these tests, and which are moreover equally well-supported by the evidence.[31]
Another contentious aspect of the Razor is that a theory can become more complex in terms of its structure (or syntax), while its ontology (or semantics) becomes simpler, or vice versa.[32] The theory of relativity is often given as an example.
Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occam's Razor in his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if you really wanted to start from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could certainly construct the whole of human knowledge out of them (a view that Abraham Abulafia presented much more expansively).

 

You so easily accept a 'first cause' called god. A thing without cause.
Yet cant accept that reality itself may have no cause.

this is not "something from nothing", it is something that "is".

also: he is not talking about the principle "Occam's razor", he is referring to himself as an observer.

 

also(2), their is nothing evident from your copy/paste in anything i have quoted or posted here, ever.